06/13/1988 - Comprehensive Plan
`CITY COMMISSION WORK SESSION`
`Comprehensive Plan`
June 13, 1988
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall, Monday, June 13, 1988, at 9:00 A.M., with the following members `present`:
Rita Garvey Mayor Commissioner
James Berfield Vice Mayor/Commissioner
Lee Regulski Commissioner
Don Winner Commissioner
William Nunamaker Commissioner
`Also present were`:
Ron H. Rabun City Manager
Cynthia Goudeau City Clerk
The Mayor called the meeting to order and the following items were discussed:
`Land Use Plan Categories`
The Land Use Plan Categories where reviewed by the City Commission in May of 1988 and sent back to the Planning and Zoning Board for review. The Planning and Zoning Board recommends
keeping the categories currently in place and adding a Conservation category.
Jeff Pruitt, Planner II, indicated a consensus is needed for Resort/Commercial and what will be allowed in that category. In response to a question, he stated a Conservation designation
would clearly identify environmentally significant land.
It was requested that provisions be made to address the types of activities such as Isaiah's Inn currently there is not a good format to address this type of use.
Discussion ensued regarding mixed use of residential and business office and it was stated that this is already provided for in the code. It was the general opinion that the current
code posesses the tools that are needed.
`Community Values and Objectives`
The Urban Land Institute Journal of February, 1988, included an article
on "Successful Communities". Those "success factors" are relevant to the community's image and desires over the next decade.
The Commission was requested to review the "success exam" and to provide
input in evaluating the key factors.
1) What are Clearwater's most distinctive assets?
Chris Papandrea, Planner III, stated that plans should be made to
recognize, enhance, preserve and nurture these assets.
Commission consensus was that the beach, the bayfront and other waterfront
areas are the most distinctive assets of Clearwater. It was also the general feeling that any currently, publicly owned land in these areas should remain publicly owned and preserved
as open space.
Discussion ensued regarding how the beach, bayfront and waterfront areas
could be preserved and also enhanced.
Distinctions were made between Clearwater Bay and Tampa Bay. It was felt
that the bayfront overlay adequately protects Clearwater Bay. The Tampa Bay waterfront is considered to be an area in which water recreational activity could be developed. Discussion
ensued regarding what effect the development of the 49th Street Bridge would have on the Tampa Bay waterfront areas.
In discussing the beach it was stated that there are sufficient provisions
for redevelopment of what is there; however, mass transportation should be addressed in order to reduce the need for parking on the beach.
The Mayor stated she felt the city's requirements for open space,
trees and landscaping are also assets that need to be preserved.
Discussion ensued regarding conflict between neighborhood and commercial
developments. A suggestion was made that for neighborhood/commercial establishments there be a restriction placed on the business hours. It was the consensus to investigate this.
2) What vision do you have of Clearwater in 1999? What specific
opportunities should be enhanced or added; what features should be removed or modified?
A question was raised regarding whether or not Clearwater was changing
from a tourist orientation to a year round residential orientation. A question was also raised regarding whether or not Clearwater was a bedroom community and whether or not that was
what was desired.
Discussion ensued regarding the need for smaller, more diversified
industrial developments. Questions were raised regarding whether or not there were problems with the current requirements and processes that discouraged desirable types of businesses
from locating in Clearwater.
It was stated that people looking for careers are leaving the area and
there is a need to induce a higher level of job opportunity in Clearwater. It was felt that it is not wise to "hang our hat" on tourism. It was suggested that an aggressive recruitment
effort be started to attract the smaller quality businesses that would provide the job market that is desired.
3) What aesthetic improvement can and should be made to improve the image
of Clearwater?
Discussion ensued regarding the efforts that have been made in the past
to address aesthetic questions. It was suggested that land owners be more responsible for things such as street corner sales and signs. The issue of the rehabilitation program was brought
up and it was suggested that the rehabilitation program could be part of the Economic Development Directors duties.
A suggestion was made that an Economic Development Committee for the entire
city be established rather than one just for the CRA. It was the general consensus that the rehabilitation program should begin in downtown and then expand from there.
4) Does Clearwater have any "hometown heroes" who provide personal and
public guidance for improvements?
It was the general consensus that Clearwater has many low key "hometown
heroes".
5) Does Clearwater have a quality of life lobby?
The general response was that the entire community participated for
lobbying for quality of life; however, it was stated that there is not a strong core of leadership in the private sector and this is something that needs to be addressed and developed.
6) Does Clearwater have savvy developers?
Consensus was that most of the developers in Clearwater are savvy.
Concerns were expressed that there may be some provisions of the Code and some of the procedures required that discourage some of the savvy, quality developers.
It was suggested that a facilitator, which had previously been used in the
Building Department, be reestablished. It was also questioned whether or not there would be an advantage to looking at incentives to encourage residential development in the downtown
area.
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m.